Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the write/safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description adds real context on top: the deployment prerequisite, the schema-matching constraint on entity_type, and meaningful entity_id guidance. It doesn't say what happens on a duplicate entity_id or schema mismatch error, but the added context is substantial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose, then REQUIRES, then a worked example – well structured and skimmable. Minor redundancy: 'entity_id is your unique identifier' repeats the schema's own 'Unique identifier for the node' description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-node creation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, valid inputs, and an example. It could note error behavior on duplicate IDs or schema mismatch, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining that entity_type must match a project schema entity key, that entity_id is the unique identifier to choose deliberately, and by showing a concrete data example.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a single node in a deployed graph project') with the scope word 'single' that immediately distinguishes it from bulk_create_graph_nodes. It is also clearly distinct from create_graph_relationship and create_graph_project.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete prerequisites and routing: project must be deployed, use deploy_graph_staging first, and use get_graph_data_schema to find valid entity types. It stops short of saying when to prefer update_graph_node over create for existing nodes, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.